Judgment :- The above appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vellore in MCOP No. 216 of 2004, dated 24.08.2005. 2. The claimant is the appellant in this appeal. On 14.07.2004 at about 5.55 P.M., when the claimant was proceeding in his motor cycle at Arcot to Ranipet Main Road near Arcot Paler Bridge, a bus belonging to the respondent corporation hit the petitioner’s motor cycle and on account of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-under various heads. The respondent resisted the claim by filing a counter statement denying the manner in which the accident occurred as well as the quantum compensation claimed. 4. The Tribunal framed two questions for consideration, as who was negligent or responsible for the accident and as to whether the claimant is entitled for compensation. On the first issue, the Tribunal decided against the respondent and in favour of the claimant and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent’s bus. On the second issue, the Tribunal awarded a compensation under different heads, viz., a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the injuries sustained, Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1500/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.1500/- towards extra nourishment and in all total amount of Rs.35,000/-. Not being satisfied with the award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would strenuously contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the compensation for the disability suffered by the claimant at Rs.20,000/- without considering the fact that the disability has been assessed by the Doctor at 45%. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the claimant suffered fracture in his right hand and the amount of Rs.1500 fixed towards pain and suffering is grossly inadequate. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal assessed the oral and documentary evidence and came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded for the grievous injury and disability is just and proper and the compensation awarded under the other heads are also just compensation and therefore, the award calls for no interference. 7. I have heard the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. 7. I have heard the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. From the evidence available on record, it is seen that the claimant sustained grievous injury in the accident and according to the claimant, he had suffered crush injury on the right hand palm and multiple abresions all over the body and fracture on the right fore arm. In support of the said contention, the claimant produced Ex.P.2, the wound certificate issued by a reputed hospital and the claimant examined himself, stating that he suffered a fracture in his right hand. However, the Tribunal relied upon evidence of PW2, the Doctor who in his cross examination stated that on 16.07.2005, no X-Ray was taken and also by relying upon the evidence of Ex.PW-3 stating that the claimant had reported back for work and awarded Rs.20,000/-as compensation for the grievous injury and disability. 9. It is seen that the respondent was not able to establish before the Tribunal that the claimant did not suffer a fracture and as per the certificate issued by the Doctor, the fracture occurred on the right hand in the fore arm and the Doctor assessed the disability at 45%. In such circumstances, merely because no X-Ray was taken on 16.07.2005 as stated by PW-2 cannot nullify the effect of Ex.P2 and Ex.P8, which are the wound certificate and the disability certificate. The respondent have not been able to dislodge the correctness of the said certificates during the course of cross examination. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.60,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation under the head of grievous injury and disability instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded based on the bills submitted by the claimant and the same does not call for any interference. On the head of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1500/-, it is seen from Ex.P2 and Ex.P8 that the claimant sustained fracture in his right fore arm and such fracture would definitely require immobilization of the right hand. Therefore, it would be fair and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering instead of Rs.1500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Therefore, it would be fair and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering instead of Rs.1500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation under the head for grievous injury and disability sustained by the claimant is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal and in respect of the head pain and suffering, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.1500/- as awarded by the Tribunal and all other aspects of the award passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed. No costs.